Argumentative Essay on Needle Exchange Policy

Introduction

Injecting drug use causes various social and health risks including the spread of infectious diseases, self-harm, violence, and incarceration. It also causes anguish to communities and families who handle different consequences of drug abuse and addiction. Needle Exchange Program (NEP) is one of the leading public health policies used to prevent the above mentioned social and health risks. The primary argument for using this policy is that it is the most effective techniques lowering the spread of infectious diseases. However, the arguments against its use are that it weakens the war on drugs, promotes drug use, and causes health hazards to children and community at large. Therefore, this paper summarizes the major arguments for using Needle Exchange Policy and those against it. It also describes my position on the policy and suggests changes to the policy to make it successful.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Needle Exchange Policy

Exchange refers to a policy established to educate and promote health among intravenous drug users. It is a harm-reducing program that allows people to inject themselves with drugs to access sterile syringes and needles (Clarke 289). Principally, intravenous drug users should be accorded access to adequate clean syringes and needles every year to handle and eradicate the transmission of infectious diseases such as HIV and blood-borne viruses through the stated technique (Bluthenthal 214). The policy allows intravenous drug users to get clean, new medical needles and other vital equipment required for injecting drugs. These equipment are usually supplied at a relatively low cost or no cost to the drug addicts after they return needle and syringes they have already used. Typically, addicts are provided with the same number of needles and syringes to those they exchange or return. The primary reason for this policy as stated by Fernandes is to reduce harm (309). The fundamental assumption is that individuals are going to inject themselves with drugs irrespective of whether or not they have sanitary and clean devices. With the widespread of the blood-borne virus among intravenous drug users, the primary goal of the policy is to avert further transmissions because of inadequate access to clean needles and syringes.

Arguments for Using Needle Exchange Policy

One of the leading arguments for Needle Exchange Policy is the most effective means of eradicating risks associated with intravenous drug usage. According to Bluthenthal, sharing needle accounts for 25% of HIV infections across the US, and that with many people staying in the US suffer from HIV/AIDS, supplying intravenous drug users with new syringes can potentially lower the HIV rates (215). However, critics of the policy contend that it only encourages drug use and hardly eradicates the risk (Heimer 183). The critics further argue that the policy encourages fatal habits instead of facilitating prevention strategy. To counter the above argument, Fernandes contended that the policy has a global return rate of about 90%, a figure that reveals that it brings positive outcomes to intravenous drug users because it enables them to exchange their used syringe for new ones (309). This implies that the needle exchange policy helps in the prevention of sharing of syringes and the transmission of infectious diseases.

Another major argument for using the needle exchange program is that it helps drug users to get over their drug addiction habits. Given that needle exchange policy exists within the social framework of responsibility and safety, it can provide intravenous drug users with a better way to grow and attain positive development and overcome their addiction (Wadehra 1). Further, because drugs are deeply rooted in young adults and adolescence where experimentation is more likely to happen, the practice of acting responsibly regarding drug use can be viewed as the significant milestone towards determining the attendant risks linked to drug use and initiating necessary actions to eradicate the identified risks (Wadehra 1). Admittedly, the spread of the disease is a risk but the damage inflicted to the body due to prolonged drug use is believed to be the most significant risk. Intravenous drug users who take the initiatives of acting responsibly by joining needle exchange programs for new syringes and needles is a person who is believed to be a step closer handling other risks associated or caused by drug use. Therefore, the needle exchange program is viewed as the mediator between drug abusers and drug rehabilitation programs because it acts as a stepping stone towards the process of achieving complete rehabilitation.

The last argument for using the needle exchange policy is that it is cost effective. Necessarily, the long term cost of infectious diseases such as Hepatitis C and HIV can increase significantly. Reports on the effects of the policy suggest that it can prevent a considerable amount of infections among intravenous drug users (Fernandes 309). Further, policies such as needle exchange is a great investment in the management and prevention of the stated illness in itself. Indeed, the price of needle and syringe is approximately the price of a dime. Therefore, investing in a needle exchange policy is among the cost-effective means of preventing the spread of infectious diseases. Usually, costs incurred in preventing infectious diseases such as Hepatitis are relatively higher than the expenses incurred in purchasing equipment for the needle exchange program.

Arguments Against Using Needle Exchange Policy

There is plenty of moral dilemma among government agencies and health care providers in regards to supporting needle exchange programs. First, the opponents of needle exchange program assert that the policy encourages drug use among individuals and supplying drug users with new needles and syringes is a potential motivator for such persons to carry on with their habit of injecting themselves with drugs (Heimer 183).

Secondly, numerous concerns have been raised regarding the rightness of policies that support intravenous drug users in their fatal behavior of drug abuse. Principally, most drug-related policies across the world focus on eradicating drug abuse, making individuals aware of it and preventing drugs from being sold on the streets. However, a good number of these policies appear to be unable to effectively incorporate the increased cases of drug abuse, particularly in the framework of risks and hazards that emanate as a consequence of drug abuse (Heimer 183).

Recent studies have also indicated that the benefits of needle exchange policy were overestimated mainly and that the positive impacts that the policy brings are relatively smaller than initially believed (Wadehra 1). For example, the transmission of infectious diseases such as Hepatitis C can occur through shared needles. Nonetheless, this is not the only known mode of transmission because the said illness can also be caused by sexual intercourse with an infected person. On the same note, the virus that causes this disease can survive outside the body for a long duration before manifesting any signs and symptoms.

The public officials and community members have also raised safety concerns regarding illegal disposal of used needles and syringes once the new ones are distributed. Recent headlines have explained the little syringe challenges in big towns that actively distribute needles and syringes to intravenous drug users such as California, San Francisco, Oregon, Portland and Bloomington among others. Nonetheless, such concerns are critical particularly concerning the safety of toddlers who may encounter contaminated needles and syringes while playing in public areas.

More importantly, law enforcement agencies and officers have argued that needle exchange policies or programs may inhibit their practice of probing criminals for probable cause of drug abuse or other criminal activities (Wadehra 1). For instance, the presence of a needle or a syringe could usually form a basis for a search. However, in towns where these equipment are distributed as an initiative of preventing diseases, the practice may be banned.

My Position

As the discussion regarding the benefits and drawbacks of exchange needle policy continues, I believe there is a definite necessity of improved, scientifically supported techniques of supporting drug injecting persons. Although needle exchange policy has been implemented in various regions across the world, there are no internationally set standards, benchmarks or criteria that can ensure uniform implementation of the Needle Exchange Policy (Koo et al. 130). Presently, these policies are more of needle provision and recuperation technique and are just starting points other health care services. The only document that currently standardizes the implementation of the policy is the Mandatory Guidelines Legislation. There are no other guidelines, materials or criteria that can be considered during the planning or rollover phase of the program (Koo et al. 130). Further, there is inadequate funding for the program and resistance from different quotas especially law enforcement agencies and healthcare providers.

To increase the success of needle exchange policy, a universal legislation, guideline, or document should be formulated that can help in the planning or implementation of the policy. The governments should also increase their budgets for the programs. Moreover, (Strike et al. 34) suggested that health promotion and education should be improved to increase public awareness. Principally, intravenous drug users should be informed on the risks associated with sharing syringes and needles to minimize cases of infectious disease transmission, reduce stigma, discrimination, as well as, resistance to the policy implementation.

Works Cited

Bluthenthal, Ricky N., et al. "Higher syringe coverage is associated with lower odds of HIV risk and does not increase unsafe syringe disposal among syringe exchange program clients." Drug and Alcohol Dependence, vol. 89, no. 2-3, 2007, pp. 214-222.

Clarke, Kris. "The case of a needle exchange policy debate in Fresno, California." Critical Social Policy, vol. 36, no. 2, 2015, pp. 289-306.

Fernandes, Ricardo M., et al. "Effectiveness of needle and syringe Programmes in people who inject drugs - An overview of systematic reviews." BMC Public Health, vol. 17, no. 1, 2017, pp. 309-310.

Heimer, Robert. "Can Syringe Exchange Serve as a Conduit to Substance Abuse Treatment?" Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, vol. 15, no. 3, 1998, pp. 183-191.

Koo, Fung K., et al. "Barriers and Potential Improvements for Needle and Syringe Exchange Programs (NSPs) in China: A Qualitative Study from Perspectives of Both Health and Public Security Sectors." PLOS ONE, vol. 10, no. 6, 2015, p. e0130654.

Strike, Carol et al. "Guidelines for better harm reduction: Evaluating implementation of best practice recommendations for needle and syringe programs (NSPs)." International Journal of Drug Policy, vol. 22, no. 1, 2011, pp. 34-40.

Wadehra, Sunali. "Point-Counterpoint: Should We Implement Needle Exchange Programs for the Prevention of Hepatitis C Virus?" Infectious Disease Advisor, Haymarket Media, Inc, 16 July 2018, www.infectiousdiseaseadvisor.com/home/advisor-channels/hepatitis-advisor/point-counterpoint-should-we-implement-needle-exchange-programs-for-the-prevention-of-hepatitis-c-virus/.